Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025
385Ayes
26Noes
Carried · majority 359 · Government won244 did not vote
655 Members · Aye 385 · No 26 · DNV 244 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 2 July 2025, the House of Commons voted on the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025, which adds further organisations to the United Kingdom's official list of banned terrorist groups. The motion passed by 385 votes to 26, a substantial majority reflecting broad cross-party support for the measure. Proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it a criminal offence to belong to, support, or promote a listed organisation, and gives police and security services enhanced powers to act against its members and financiers. By expanding the list, this order extends those counter-terrorism tools to cover the newly named groups. Anyone found to be a member of, or providing material support to, one of the newly proscribed organisations faces potential prosecution and imprisonment. The practical effect is to increase the legal exposure of individuals connected to these groups operating in or linked to the United Kingdom. Support cut across virtually all parties, with Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, and the Democratic Unionist Party all voting in favour or abstaining without opposition. The 26 votes against came primarily from within Labour's own ranks (11 MPs), four Green Party MPs, and a small number of independents and other smaller party representatives. There were no Conservative rebels. The vote sits within a long-running legislative pattern of Parliament periodically updating the proscription list as new threat assessments emerge, and the lopsided result reflects the political difficulty of voting against measures framed in terms of national security.
Voting Aye meant
Support proscribing additional organisations as terrorist groups, strengthening counter-terrorism powers
Voting No meant
Oppose this particular proscription order, either on civil liberties grounds, concerns about specific groups listed, or doubts about proportionality
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
249
11
101
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
84
0
32
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
6
0
66
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
30
0
12
Independent
—
2
5
6
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
6
0
2
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
3
0
2
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Your Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Minister defending proscription of all three groups as meeting the legal terrorism threshold; emphasises ideological neutrality and serious property damage by Palestine Action crossing into terrorism.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,355 words) →
Questions why groups are bundled together; argues Palestine Action should be voted on separately and that direct action has historic legitimacy; warns of chilling effect on protest.Independent · Voted no · Read full speech (914 words) →
Shadow Minister supporting government's proscription of all three groups; argues they have crossed the line from protest into terrorism through violence and property damage.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,048 words) →
Supports proscription of MMC and RIM but questions proportionality of Palestine Action proscription; notes this is first organisation proscribed primarily for property damage and expresses concern about precedent.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (961 words) →
Opposes proscription of Palestine Action as unprecedented overreach using counter-terror laws to silence political dissent; compares unfavourably to PM's past defence of direct action.SNP · Voted no · Read full speech (1,083 words) →
Would support proscription of MMC and RIM but opposes Palestine Action; warns that proscription risks criminalising thousands of supporters and volunteers under terrorism laws for supporting protests.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (865 words) →
Supports MMC and RIM proscription but opposes Palestine Action; argues proscription undermines democracy by extending anti-terror laws to political protest; warns of precedent.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (796 words) →
Strongly supports proscription of all three; emphasises Palestine Action's violence, intimidation, and antisemitic harassment campaign as justifying terrorist designation.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (581 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0